686
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
686 points (100.0% liked)
World News
21974 readers
158 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
For context: I'm Estonian. Our nation has a great deal of history with Russian imperialism, under both tsarist and soviet rules. Even Putin has threatened us before. So clearly I'm not a supporter of the Russian regime or their imperialistic ambitions. However, I'm going to present an unpopular opinion.
The balkanization of Russia, if it were to happen, would not be beneficial in the long run. At least not for the people at large.
Yes, the big western cities would be a lot more liberal and open to democracy than the vast countryside. However, we need to consider the fact that different Russian oblasts have VAST differences in economic power. The big cities will thrive on their own, sure, but their tax money would then no longer be used to help people in the more remote regions. Not that these regions are getting a lot of attention now, but at least under a different regime for the current Russian nation as it is, it'd be possible to improve infrastructure, education, industry, etc. for towns in remote oblasts.
And leaving those people farther and farther behind, will cause new unrests. And definitely there would be military dictatorships who promise better lives, etc.
Therefore, a division of Russia into small states might actually cause more issues in the long run. Not that I'm a fan of it staying intact either.
It's a choice between two evils of unknown magnitude, the only good thing is that none of us are the ones making that choice so we don't have to live with it on our consciences.
To me, the larger issue for the world outside of Russia is the ensuing chaos would be pretty scary when there are nukes sitting around. All it would take is one bad actor to get ahold of those for bad things to happen. I don't think it's likely and I can't currently see the motivations for using nukes on any other nations apart from Russia itself and Ukraine, but chaos is chaos and many would consider the evil we know to be safer than whatever else lurks around the corner.
Personally, though, despite being aware of this it would regardless please me so much to see Putin fall. I would especially love to see Russia democratize more, but I'm afraid that's probably a pipe dream anytime soon. Uncontrolled chaos generally doesn't lend itself to more democracy.
Yeah, I fear you are right. Democratization hardly ever happens from within the system.
Counterpoint: Smaller oblasts may be better suited to deal with corruption and accept foreign aid
Yeaaaaaah unlikely in that culture.
It might cause more issues in those states but wouldn't each of them be weaker? I don't know how to fix Russia, but if it can't be fixed I'd rather they not be strong enough to attack other countries.
Depends on whether they'll manage to get control of the nukes. They're likely stashed all around the nation, but the question is how difficult it would be to gain launch capability, since the existing infrastructure would likely not be usable by local militaries.
We're also talking about the potential suffering of millions of people.
Chances are decent that the nukes don't work any more, so that may not be a threat at all.
I'm still reluctant to put that hypothesis to the test, though, for obvious reasons…
I doubt the tritium is being reliably refilled, but a second stage fizzle is still a disaster, and I'm sure at least some of them can still create a sizable explosion
Right you are. I also wonder whether the rockets all still work, but as you say, at least some of them probably still do.
If the local economies fail to sustain and source advanced material and components needed for the infrastructure, it might end up not being a big problem.
I imagine the nations would end up falling under the control of other nations, such as China, who does not desire nuclear war.
But yes, it would very much still be a humanitarian nightmare for those places.
I doubt anyone would seriously want to fire a nuke even if the country fell into a civil war.
It's more of a saying or sentiment so to speak - that the system could be nuked and people would perhaps arguably be better off to reform from scratch, with the knowledge of hindsight rather than with the current difficulties.
Having some of these countries turn into democracies is better than having none of these countries turn into democracies. Large countries like Russia cannot cohesively rule over its populace without establishing some sort of dictatorship. Democracy in Russia didn't last because there were too many rich oligarchs corrupting government power back to a form they could control. China is in the same category.
If they have any hope to establish and maintain a democracy, the country must be broken up.
Nice theory but it doesn’t hold up very well. Both Canada and Australia are enormous countries that are both well functioning democracies.
There are a number of great sources that describe the conditions for good democracies - and intolerance of corruption is a vital condition. That’s something that has never really been taken seriously in Russia, so in some ways it’s no surprise it’s come to this.
India is also an example of a very corrupt and badly managed democracy, so your point is moot.
The reality as far as we've seen is that certain cultures where information is tightly controlled, traditional masculinity is prized, and sole survivor mentality among men is very valued, there tends to be more of an acceptance if not casual support for the simplicity of a dictatorship.
The other issue is that not all democracies are equal and an educated and experienced populace where individuals are most capable of taking care of themselves while providing maximum utility for themselves and others is where democracy is most likely to be of greatest compliment for a system.
About 90% of Canada lives 100 miles from the southern border, so I wouldn't call the whole country "populated". Australia is in a similar situation with its deserts. Sure, Russia also has cold, sparsely populated regions, but most of the landmass is still habitable.
Even then, Russia is still twice as large as both of those countries, and has at least double the population density.
How about a republic or collective of smaller democracies? Similar to the EU, but with borscht, saunas and separate regional currencies, and one major shared currency, e.g. Ethereum, for cross country business exchange of goods.
As an Australian, I assure you it is possible for a country of "big cities" to fund activity in remote areas. I won't say we do it a perfect job of it here, but we do a decent enuogh job and some of our remote towns are far more remote than anything in the northern hemisphere. Some Australian towns are several hours by airplane to the nearest city and don't even have a reliable source of water. And yet, the people living there have relatively comfortable lives.
The problem in my mind is that the big cities and the remote areas would likely become separate countries, so there'll be about a 100x difference in GDP per capita between the richest and poorest post-Russian nations.